linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix __show

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1493857488.22125.31.camel@perches.com>
Date:   Wed, 03 May 2017 17:24:48 -0700
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix __show_regs output timestamps

On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 22:30 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 12:44:11PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 20:23 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:39:49AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > > > Multiple line formats are not preferred as the second and
> > > > subsequent lines may not have timestamps.
> > > > 
> > > > Lacking timestamps makes reading the output a bit difficult.
> > > > This also makes arm/arm64 output more similar.
> > > > 
> > > > Previous:
> > > > 
> > > > [ 1514.093231] pc : [<bf79c304>]    lr : [<bf79ced8>]    psr: a00f0013
> > > > sp : ecdd7e20  ip : 00000000  fp : ffffffff
> > > > 
> > > > New:
> > > > 
> > > > [ 1514.093231] pc : [<bf79c304>]    lr : [<bf79ced8>]    psr: a00f0013
> > > > [ 1514.105316] sp : ecdd7e20  ip : 00000000  fp : ffffffff
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
> > > 
> > > Hi Joe,
> > > 
> > > Could you put this in my patch system please, I'm unlikely to remember to
> > > apply it otherwise if not already there (massive email backlog.)
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > 
> > Your patch system bounced my perfectly formatted patch
> > because your system wants totally unnecessary additional
> > information specific to your workflow.
> > 
> > No thanks, I don't need the additional work just to
> > please your system and neither should anyone else.
> 
> Don't expect me to remember to apply your patch then.  I've got days of
> catch up, and I'm just not going to remember.  Sorry.

<shrug>

If your systems require special handling on the
part of patch submitters, you should document it
in the kernel tree.

Better, someone else should find the time to apply
properly formatted patches.